Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rlor" data-source="post: 6811264" data-attributes="member: 6803226">I guess there are two parts to this:1.&nbsp; House ruling con to death saving throws.Me personally I don't care one way or the other and could easily be talked into ruling in favor of it.2.&nbsp; The DM has ruled one way and the player is choosing not to follow it.This seems pretty clear cut to me.&nbsp; As a player I can make my case during the game for maybe a minute or two, or bring it up after the game for a more extended discussion.&nbsp; If the DM listens to it but is still set to ruling a certain way then I should either play by that ruling or if it bothers me that much cease playing with the DM.&nbsp; Being antagonist about it by saying &quot;I'm going to ignore your rules&quot; is a jerk tactic a DM shouldn't have to put up with.&nbsp; Players should have outgrown the Cops and Robbers &quot;I killed you&quot; &quot;No you didn't&quot; stuff many years ago.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rlor, post: 6811264, member: 6803226"] I guess there are two parts to this: 1. House ruling con to death saving throws. Me personally I don't care one way or the other and could easily be talked into ruling in favor of it. 2. The DM has ruled one way and the player is choosing not to follow it. This seems pretty clear cut to me. As a player I can make my case during the game for maybe a minute or two, or bring it up after the game for a more extended discussion. If the DM listens to it but is still set to ruling a certain way then I should either play by that ruling or if it bothers me that much cease playing with the DM. Being antagonist about it by saying "I'm going to ignore your rules" is a jerk tactic a DM shouldn't have to put up with. Players should have outgrown the Cops and Robbers "I killed you" "No you didn't" stuff many years ago. [/QUOTE]

Verification